... and over 1 second faster to 100 mph
... and 4 seconds faster to 150mph ... that`s like a football field
... and trapping 6mph faster in the quarter mile

Just saying...

On this point... I think C&D have it wrong. Specs for the M3 per BMW is 3,704lbs (confirmed by Wikipedia too). Specs for the C63 per MB is 3,935lbs. So, 231lbs in the difference and not 444. Not sure where C&D came up with their numbers but they don`t jive with posted specs for the cars based on what I can see (and there is no way they actually weigh each car). Still, it is too bad MB couldnt have shaved a couple of hundred pounds (i.e. lose the glass panaramic roof). Had they, the C63 would be an even beastier beast.

Hi gthal, C&D DO weigh every car. In fact, they have even shown the scale in a few of the articles. If you look at the test sheets, they vary from test to test on the same model car. They report corner weights as well.
Dig deeper, and you can tell if there are certain options on the car, just by weight. (Their weights match Grassroots motorsports corner weights too.)

The manufacturer can spec the car however they want and claim a weight. My 911 was supposed to be 3100 LBS, but when I had it weighed, it was 200 lbs heavier. I think that BMW has every fluid filled and a typical load of luggage added. (or 75 Kg driver weight).
Either way, download those test sheets from C&D, they are the only ones who weight every car. (and now they do center of gravity tests too) I don't care much for their writing or conclusions, but some of the data is good.

Also, R&T does not correct their accel times for track conditions, but C&D does. From a scientific standpoint, this matters. R&T reports temp, humidity and atmospheric pressure. C&D does not provide their formula for correction......